Thanks!

Well put. I smiled when you quoted Rand, as Tom Selleck, as "Jesse Stone" uses that line quite often.
There is so little reason or rationality on TV there scripts.days, it is a garbage heap of buzz phrases and PC

Well said, Stormi. Language is suborned to protect ideas and beliefs, even those, or especially those, that are misconstructions of reality. And thinking is a two-edged sword, pitting reason against rationalization. Hence Ayn Rand's immortal dictum: "Check your premises."

Ideas engage the emotions, and emotions cloud clear thought. Check what values your emotions have become attached to, and why. We become programmed by our parents and our culture, at an age too young to be able to "weigh the validity of the sources".

We who care need to assure that reaching the "age of reason" is still possible. As Rand said, "don't let it go." A million years of evolution to build a reasoning mind, an inventive and volitional consciousness -- what a pity if it were to vanish with the dinosaurs (our allosaur not included). Every thought, every choice, every act has consequences and affects everything else (remember the butterfly wing?). Here's a verse from my school days that captures an answer to the OP:

"Isn't it odd that princes and kings
And clowns that caper in sawdust rings
And simple folk like you and me
Help to make up eternity? [read: reality]

Each is given a bag of tools,
A lump of clay and a book of rules,
And each must make, ere life is flown,
A stumbling block or a stepping stone."

You attitude/consciousness is a fact of reality that has influence on what you will do, how you evaluate facts, what ambitions you have, how much energy you can muster and so on. It is not an either-or question at that level. Rand recognized deeply the importance of the "inner game" and "sense of life".

However, if you are asking whether there is some magic such that your attitude/consciousness overrides any facts of reality the answer is clearly NO.

Great exposition. Lots of food for thought.
Thank you.

Objective reality is all that exists as existence which includes the Universe and the underlying theorized quantum mechanical vacuum which are observable as well as any inferences about the Universe beyond the observable horizon. Consciousness is aware of objective reality period and a consciousness is part of objective reality and can be aware of itself. Subjective reality is a sub-category of objective reality which patterns, like with concepts, or models reality but its patterns or models can not be reified as anything other than their biochemical changing systems. It is more like a self programmable biochemical physical system which can change its program towards survival of itself or if wrongly programmed towards its own destruction.
Most everything is done subconsciously with consciousness observing results. It is difficult for a consciousness to change subconscious stuff more than to just inhibit actions. An example of how little control consciousness has is to hold out your hand and try to will your index finger to move. It can't be done. It will move but not by demanding it to move. It only moves when it moves as though it is given permission to do so by not inhibiting its motion.
Some fear that there is no free will if the subconscious is the main mover or that everything might be deterministic if one has no real conscious control of action. There is no way to tell one way or the other since the complexity of the biochemistry is such that knowledge of what is occurring at the micro level is unknowable at each instance of time.

Your actions are determined by you. Everything has an identity and acts accordingly. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action.

What "outcomes" are you talking about? Your original post is very cryptic.

Everyone believes their own position is well thought out and all others are wrong. Which means, of course, whatever it was you disagreed with me about, we both know who was correct. Right?

Having disagreed with you so strongly over another issue, it is refreshing to see that your treatment of this topic is well thought out and rationally expounded upon. +1

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/con...

A common treatment of the question is that reality is determined by actions. Even so far as to imply that action is a primary. This is an unacceptable answer because it does not address the causal chain preceding the action.

The reason I decided to write the question as such is because this is common vernacular. I believe I can correct it in several ways to open the floor to an objective discussion:

If existence exists, and things are what they are (A is A) regardless of whims, wishes, or desires, then what role does consciousness play with regard to man's actions?

To correct the original language is to define what is a fact. Many of you have said that existence exists implies facts about entities. This is not, strictly speaking, correct. Consciousness is necessary in order to perceive that which exists. Attitude and consciousness cannot on their own accord determine outcomes, but is part of the causal chain that effects an outcome.

Back to the question two paragraphs above:

"Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

Awareness is not a passive state, but an active process. On the lower levels of awareness, a complex neurological process is required to enable man to experience a sensation and to integrate sensations into percepts; that process is automatic and non-volitional: man is aware of its results, but not of the process itself. On the higher, conceptual level, the process is psychological, conscious and volitional. In either case, awareness is achieved and maintained by continuous action.

Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms."

i mean those not participating the the actions.

And actions are determined by... what?

The meek...?

ewv...What does "mean'", mean? What does "what,mean"? What does
"does" mean? What does "mean, mean?
What does ? mean? ad infinitum......BS

And so, your conclusion is.....?

Whether observation alters reality depends upon whether the observer is probing something or whether the something is radiating and the radiation is observed. In the first case, probing radiation is interacted with the object whose state is changed and the object in the new state radiates and is observed in a different state than the original now unknown state. In the second case, the object's state is observed as what it was at the time of the emission of radiation, so is about the past. It never is about the present because electromagnetic radiation has a finite speed of about one foot per nanosecond.
Even thought is done in the past to enter consciousness in a fleeting now.

A humorous aside: I saw a saying painted inside an aircraft cockpit "Gravity is a myth. The earth sucks!" I think of that every time I drop something.

Ah, the eternal debate: the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness?

Objectivism resolves this question. The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom existence exists, i.e., the universe exists independently of consciousness (of any consciousness), things are what they are, they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness — the notion that the universe has no independent
existence and is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).

The epistemological corollary is the notion man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it [allegedly] receives from another, superior consciousness). The term 'primacy' in this context means the state of ranking first.

One of many issues Rand “got right” was the definition of an axiom. Rand’s philosophical definition of an axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact they have to accept and use it in the process of any denial attempt. The most fundamental, irreducible and absolute axiom states simply: existence exists. Any attempt to deny these two words requires the acceptance of the existence of the words used in the refutation, and, therefore, falls of its own weight.

Francis Bacon is the first I know of who expressed this. Yeah, I know, Rand claimed full credit, but Bacon knew in order to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. His statement “Reality is Absolute” is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence.

The primacy of consciousness theory, on the other hand, asserts consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness and sometimes the form of an individual consciousness creating its own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. As Rand said, to be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something of which to be aware. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it itself must exist and if it exists it came first, which makes it primary.

The truth is that Existence is primary.

Both. Reality is just a collection of facts, but a person's attitude/consciousness is a physical fact about him which can determine his behavior and thus affect outcomes.

"Reality exists!" It's not really clear what that means. If by "reality" we mean "The sum totality of all existence" it sounds nice but it is difficult to employ that definition in a meaningful way. As a scientist I view reality in terms of its observable properties. We can observe properties such as mass, inertia, gravitational attraction and so on and we can construct models that allow us to employ these properties in almost limitless ways. We know enough about gravitation and dynamics, thanks to Newton and Einstein, that we can design and navigate a spacecraft between planets. As witnessed by the recent Juno orbit insertion at Jupiter it is clear that we can do this with astonishing precision. So, we have a pretty good understanding of what gravity does and how it works. But these are behavioral models that describe the observable properties of some, as yet not understood, underlying mechanism. Einstein had a pretty good go at it with his field equations which suggest that gravitation is geometric effect. In fact, if you treat it as such the concept yields many new insights that are experimentally testable. Does that mean the underlying mechanism of gravity really is a geometric process or does mean that the model simply bears a useful relationship to that reality? Einstein knew that both special and general relativity theories were incomplete. He recognized that neither theory helped to unify the relationship with other forces and at the scale of the very small, and perhaps the very large, they became increasingly inaccurate. That doesn't mean the theories are wrong but it does show that they have boundaries beyond which they do not apply. In the final analysis we seem to be very good at finding out what things do but not so good at finding out what things are. I don't know where all this fits into objectivism but it is certainly an important part of our understanding of reality.

Exactly right, and the meek will inherit nothing.

Reality exists, it is how close we come to knowing it tat varies. Facts don't exist permanently, as science is ever making new, sometimes contradictory, discoveries. Politicians create what they call facts, which are only ideas which will give them more power.Philosophy is about the unending search for the wisdom which gets us close to reality. Our language has been so bastardized by liberals, that words no longer lead us to truth. We know we exist, and what we do with that, how we process the world, is what gets us closer to what could be reality. I have lately found that vision is not a dependable route, after a flare up with macular degeneration, I was seeing curves and bends with one eye, which were contradicted by the other eye. We should always remember what we are fed verbally and in writing can and is equally distorted. as always, attitude is subjective, so not the route. Consciousness is easily swayed by the masses. Guess we have to do it the way the philosophers of old did it, internal thinking and study, always weighing the validity of the sources. We know we exist, but Rand told us we are and therefore we think.

The question implies the philosophical fallacy called the primacy of consciousness rather than the primacy of existence. As evw stated, existence is what is; consciousness is the faculty man uses to perceive existence and to develop concepts necessary to properly describe it. Outcomes are determined by actions.

The sticking point is that in quantum physics, observation alters reality. This leads to the convoluted question of "Is reality real?" But, in order to function, a person must deal with the aspect of reality that affects life as a conscious entity experiences it.

We now know that any solid object isn't solid at all, and is mostly comprised of space. However, no one would recommend trying to walk through a wall. Reality for us is not only what we observe about it, but also how we deal with it. So, in this case, reality is determined by size. If we were the size of an atom, we would perceive reality in an entirely different manner. The fact that observation at the level of atomic components changes it, doesn't seem to affect the way our consciousness deals with it. To complicate matters,we have yet to understand consciousness. Does it exist independent of the body? Everyone would like to think so, but so far no scientific evidence.

As one of my quantum scientist friends once said to me, paraphrasing Nils Bohr, "The atom is somewhere, we don't know where, doing something, we don't know what." Perhaps, someday.....